Writing study: Dual Band Thermal Videography: Separating Time-Varying Reflection and Emission Near Ambient Conditions

CVPR overviewCorpus atlasBy contribution typeVisual galleryRules & templateWriting patternsPaper studies

← CVPR 2026 oral writing corpus

Sriram Narayanan, Mani Ramanagopal, Srinivasa G. Narasimhan · Official CVPR 2026 oral record

Observed writing choices, not acceptance rules. This study examines the inspected manuscript version. It does not establish why the paper was accepted or that its presentation choices should be copied unchanged.

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Domain-grounded methods & physical systems (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF

10 physical pages

Before references / appendix

≈ 8.08 page-equivalents

Main figures / tables

6 / 2

Attached appendix figures / tables

0 / 0

Attached appendix span

Separate file recorded below; not in this PDF total

Before references / appendix: ≈ 80.8%References / intervening material: ≈ 19.2%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level heading	Starts on PDF page	Estimated span	Share of entire PDF
1. Introduction	1	≈ 0.86 pp.	8.6%
2. Related Work	2	≈ 0.59 pp.	5.9%
3. Thermal Image Formation Model	2	≈ 1.25 pp.	12.5%
4. Method	4	≈ 2.21 pp.	22.1%
5. Experimental Results	6	≈ 1.63 pp.	16.3%
6. Limitations	7	≈ 0.53 pp.	5.3%
7. Conclusion	8	≈ 0.66 pp.	6.6%
References	9	≈ 1.92 pp.	19.2%

All detected figure and table locations

Main text

• Figure 1 · p. 3
• Figure 2 · p. 6
• Figure 3 · p. 6
• Table 1 · p. 6
• Figure 4 · p. 7
• Table 2 · p. 7
• Figure 5 · p. 7
• Figure 6 · p. 7

Attached appendix

No recognized caption labels.

Separate source files—excluded from canonical-PDF totals

A separate author version may repeat main text and references. Whole-file lengths and counts are not extra appendix material and are never added to the canonical PDF totals. Read the study's source scope for which sections received substantive reading versus layout inspection.

Additional source 1

Separate PDF (or ZIP containing it): whole-file layout of 2 physical pages; 5 detected figures and 0 tables. These may include overlapping main-text material.

Located appendix only: starts on physical p.1; ≈ 1.78 page-equivalents, 4 figure labels and 0 table labels. This interval is distinct from the whole file.

Detected heading	PDF page	Estimated span
A. Calibration and Pre-Processing	1	≈ 0.18 pp.
B. More Experimental Results	1	≈ 1.61 pp.

• Figure 7 · p. 1
• Figure 7 · p. 1
• Figure 8 · p. 1
• Figure 9 · p. 1
• Figure 10 · p. 2

Argument and organization

1. Problem and contribution

   Names the identifiability obstacle—emission and reflection of comparable magnitude near ambient conditions—before introducing spectral and temporal cues.

2. Argument sequence

   Derives the image-formation model before calibrated and uncalibrated methods, then separates simulations from real measurements.

3. Evidence and verification

   Simulation curves, spatial error maps and physical calibration comparisons address different validation needs rather than treating a qualitative image as ground truth.

Problem, claim and contribution

Names the identifiability obstacle—emission and reflection of comparable magnitude near ambient conditions—before introducing spectral and temporal cues.

Abstract and Introduction, p. 1 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Argument and section order

Derives the image-formation model before calibrated and uncalibrated methods, then separates simulations from real measurements.

Sections 3–5, pp. 2–7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Figures, captions and visual explanation

Figure 6 keeps object rows and method columns aligned and pairs emission with reflection; the long caption explains what was measured when dense temperature truth is unavailable.

Figure 6, p. 8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Tables, comparisons and evidence

Simulation curves, spatial error maps and physical calibration comparisons address different validation needs rather than treating a qualitative image as ground truth.

Figures 2–4 and Tables 1–2, pp. 6–7 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Appendix and reproducibility

Calibration images and conditioning/ablation plots expose measurement assumptions and numerical sensitivity.

Supplement Appendices A–B, pp. 1–2 · Main paper · Additional source 2

Clarity and writing conventions

A standalone limitations section explicitly names correlated background changes and sensor sensitivity as failure conditions.

Section 6, pp. 7–8 · Main paper · Additional source 2

What to reuse—and what not to infer

Transferable lesson: For physical imaging, connect assumptions, apparatus/calibration and evidence; explain clearly whether truth is dense, simulated or sparsely measured.

Boundary: The method depends on temporal signal assumptions, and real-scene thermocouples do not validate every image pixel; do not turn qualitative separation into a dense accuracy claim.

Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

Inspection record and sources

Checked

2026-09-26

Reading status

Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected

Main text

Writing-oriented scan throughout Sections 1–7, PDF pp. 1–8; references pp. 9–10: abstract/framing, section sequence, figure/table captions, evaluation organization and conclusions; not an exhaustive technical verification.

Appendix / supplement

Writing-oriented supplement scan: Supplement Appendices A–B, pp. 1–2: calibration/pre-processing, loss ablations, conditioning and material-specific simulated curves. Video/code assets were not executed or assessed.

Visually inspected PDF pages

6, 8

This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.

• Official CVF open-access CVPR 2026 accepted-paper PDF · 10 pages
• Official CVF supplementary PDF · 2 pages